Homosexuals Vs Muslims, Requiem

[Rozalia]

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/06/12/gay-activist-after-orlando-trump-voter/?singlepage=true

 

I also now realize, with brutal clarity, that in the progressive hierarchy of identity groups, Muslims are above gays. Every pundit and politician -- and that includes President Obama and Hillary Clinton and half the talking heads on TV -- who today have said "We don't know what the shooter's motivation could possibly be!" have revealed to me their true priorities: appeasing Muslims is more important than defending the lives of gay people. Every progressive who runs interference for Islamic murderers is complicit in those murders, and I can no longer be a part of that team.

 

Something I've said for some time, and it's good to be seeing many more getting it. So vote for who you stand with, who is above who to you. No sanctimonious cop out, one is more important than the other. Only one such group can come out on top as the dumbest people on the earth aside, they are mortally and ideologically against each other.

[Crust]

Oh, didn't know homosexual muslims don't exist. I guess I'm just a figment of your imagination, Rozalia.

[Rozalia]

Oh, didn't know homosexual muslims don't exist. I guess I'm just a figment of your imagination, Rozalia.

 

I'm going to assume you're not referring to those Muslims who profess Fundamentalism but are really Homosexuals, Pedophiles, and such. Instead referring to the good ones.

 

They don't, they're a fraction of the so called apostates as Moreau III and most Muslims would safely tell you (no need to lie on that one). I'm on record here as trying to bring it to light to people on the Apostate issue several times and was completely ignored each time, or more specifically on the receiving end of distracting "I'm going to call you names so a discussion on the matter can never happen as it's uncomfortable" attack, as Muslims are higher in importance than Apostates. As such no, I don't buy your sanctimonious attempt. 

[SoS]

Had the shooter been a redneck they would have called it a hate crime immediately. Why should Muslim immediately be called a terrorist until that is proven? As far as I know they don't yet know if this is a hate crime or islamic terrorism. Wouldn't the "talking heads" be stupid to state what the motive was if they don't know yet?

[Clarke]

Had the shooter been a redneck they would have called it a hate crime immediately. Why should Muslim immediately be called a terrorist until that is proven? As far as I know they don't yet know if this is a hate crime or islamic terrorism. Wouldn't the "talking heads" be stupid to state what the motive was if they don't know yet?

The guy pledged to ISIS. 

[Zaxon]

In America mass shootings are not a new occurrence and they happened long before ISIS was in existence. However I guess the narratives of blame the Muslims, foreigners and gays is popular among the right wingers these days so just ignore the inconvenient facts that don't line up.

[SoS]

The guy pledged to ISIS.

If it is proven to be isis terror, how can anyone seriously claim they don't know his motive?

[WISD0MTREE]

In America mass shootings are not a new occurrence and they happened long before ISIS was in existence. However I guess the narratives of blame the Muslims, foreigners and gays is popular among the right wingers these days so just ignore the inconvenient facts that don't line up.

Just a select few from a multi-gigabyte file on my computer. Care for more? 

 

[Zaxon]

If it is proven to be isis terror, how can anyone seriously claim they don't know his motive?

 

The problem is he also claimed to support Hezbollah a group at odds with ISIS.  Just because he claims affiliation with some causes doesn't mean he knows a damn thing about it  

 

In the old days they used to blame this kind of violence on video games or rap music.

 

People who want to commit this kind of violence don't need to be part of a radical religion rather they simply look for things that support their violent angry personal ideology and cling to it and claim to support it. 

 

Chances are the reasoning behind this was NOT his devout religious beliefs but something more personal. Wouldn't surprise me if the guy was gay himself but hiding it from himself out of shame and built up his own self hatred.

 

 

 

 

 

Just a select few from a multi-gigabyte file on my computer. Care for more? 

 

*snip

Pass...

 

However comparing identity groups that apply to people and gun owners is bit of a stretch. For the record no one has suggested that all gun owners are dangerous only that excessive high powered guns that are easily accessible are.

[WISD0MTREE]

Pass...

However comparing identity groups that apply to people and gun owners is bit of a stretch.

 

For the record no one has suggested that all gun owners are dangerous only that excessive high powered guns that are easily accessible are.

You're right. You are covering a HUGE amount of different religions, races, sexual orientations, genders, etc. when attacking gun owners. 

 

When people like you say things like this, it just shows that you anti-gunners have no idea what you’re talking about. That doesn’t stop you from trying to pass stupid laws, though. Which is the main problem. For your information, there is no difference between a military-style AR-15 and many hunting rifles aside from the way they look. They hold the same number of rounds, they’re both semi-automatic, they both are just as lethal. The AR-15 just looks scary. When you talk about “military-style†rifles, people who know about firearms get puzzled, because they know what you don’t know: there’s NO difference between those types of firearms and common hunting rifles aside from cosmetics. Then when you start talking about banning military-style rifles, they get really, really nervous, because logically if you want to ban an AR-15, you should want to ban rifles like the Ruger Mini-14 and other common hunting rifles as well. Where will it stop? 

 

This gun

shoots the same bullet as this gun. 

They also can hold the same amount of ammo (provided that you buy the same size magazine), have almost the same kick, and are both semi-auto (1 shot per trigger pull). 

 

Edit: Zaxon, I noticed you used meters in your nation's factbook. Just out of curiosity (not trying to make you look stupid), have you ever shot a gun?

 

And note to mods, feel free to move these to some debate thread. 

Edited June 14, 2016 by WISD0MTREE

[Zaxon]

You're right. You are covering a HUGE amount of different religions, races, sexual orientations, genders, etc. when attacking gun owners. 

 

When people like you say things like this, it just shows that you anti-gunners have no idea what you’re talking about. That doesn’t stop you from trying to pass stupid laws, though. Which is the main problem. For your information, there is no difference between a military-style AR-15 and many hunting rifles aside from the way they look. They hold the same number of rounds, they’re both semi-automatic, they both are just as lethal. The AR-15 just looks scary. When you talk about “military-style†rifles, people who know about firearms get puzzled, because they know what you don’t know: there’s NO difference between those types of firearms and common hunting rifles aside from cosmetics. Then when you start talking about banning military-style rifles, they get really, really nervous, because logically if you want to ban an AR-15, you should want to ban rifles like the Ruger Mini-14 and other common hunting rifles as well. Where will it stop? 

 

This gun...They also can hold the same amount of ammo (provided that you buy the same size magazine), have almost the same kick, and are both semi-auto (1 shot per trigger pull). 

 

 

I'm not anti-gun,I'm anti-bullshit ! I like to live in the world of sensibility and reason not BS & reactionary fear mongering propaganda.

 

 

- I have nothing against sensible gun ownership and people being honest with wanting guns because they enjoy it as hobby and like going hunting ect. that's perfectly reasonable.  There are places like in Alaska where bears roam in great numbers where having a gun makes solid sense. It doesn't require a machine-gun but you wouldn't want to be face to face with bear bare handed.

 

 

- What I get sick of hearing about is people using the "self defense narrative " to an extreme like arming everyone to the teeth with firearms is somehow going to end gun violence. Having a gun doesn't make you a tough guy, doesn't make you a trained special ops member and doesn't endow you with the capabilities to handle yourself in a tense situation. I don't like people using their emotional insecurities as justification for needing a gun. Those types of people are the ones that get people killed. A !@#$ with gun is still a !@#$.

 

 

Responsible and sensible gun owners recognizes that a gun is not a toy or an extension of your man hood but a tool. Use the tool if you must but don't become one!

 

 

The debate over which specific guns should be limited is open to debate but should NOT fall into some fear mongering "they're taking all our guns away conspiracy frenzy".  Clearly people on a terrorist watch list should not be able to buy guns but because groups like the NRA are only interested in gun sales and profiteering the argument is now sidestepped.

 

Also and yes background checks and blocking various watch lists suspects from buying guns wont end all gun violence any more than locking your door at night guarantees you wont be invaded by burglars but isn't it reasonable to close those avenues the same way you lock your door.

[WISD0MTREE]

I'm not anti-gun,I'm anti-bullshit ! I like to live in the world of sensibility and reason not BS & reactionary fear mongering propaganda.

 

 

- I have nothing against sensible gun ownership and people being honest with wanting guns because they enjoy it as hobby and like going hunting ect. that's perfectly reasonable.  There are places like in Alaska where bears roam in great numbers where having a gun makes solid sense. It doesn't require a machine-gun but you wouldn't want to be face to face with bear bare handed.

 

 

- What I get sick of hearing about is people using the "self defense narrative " to an extreme like arming everyone to the teeth with firearms is somehow going to end gun violence. Having a gun doesn't make you a tough guy, doesn't make you a trained special ops member and doesn't endow you with the capabilities to handle yourself in a tense situation. I don't like people using their emotional insecurities as justification for needing a gun. Those types of people are the ones that get people killed. A !@#$ with gun is still a !@#$.

 

 

Responsible and sensible gun owners recognizes that a gun is not a toy or an extension of your man hood but a tool. Use the tool if you must but don't become one!

 

 

The debate over which specific guns should be limited is open to debate but should NOT fall into some fear mongering "they're taking all our guns away conspiracy frenzy".  Clearly people on a terrorist watch list should not be able to buy guns but because groups like the NRA are only interested in gun sales and profiteering the argument is now sidestepped.

 

Also and yes background checks and blocking various watch lists suspects from buying guns wont end all gun violence any more than locking your door at night guarantees you wont be invaded by burglars but isn't it reasonable to close those avenues the same way you lock your door.

Fear mongering propaganda? Last I checked, you were the one wanting something to be banned because it is dangerous. What exactly do you have in mind? “Bullshit†is a completely meaningless buzzword. Every time a gun control supporter gives specifics about what they mean by that exactly, it turns out to be exactly "bullshit."

---

Despite what you may think, it is perfectly legal to own a machine gun in the U.S. It is classified as an NFA (National Firearms Act) item, which means the background check process is much more extensive than with non-NFA items and you need to purchase a special tax stamp to own one. They are also very expensive, out of the purchasing range of most would-be owners.

 

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of “reasonable necessity,†and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant “would be consistent with public safety.†The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

 

For that matter, since 1934, only one legally owned machine gun has ever been used in crime, and that was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer. On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran  of the Dayton, OH police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 cal. submachine gun to kill a  police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller  pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison.  

---

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.†-Mahatma Gandhi referencing India’s Arms Act of 1878, which gave Europeans in India the right to carry firearms but prevented Indians from doing so, unless they were granted a license by the British colonial government. Those licenses were rarely given. 

 

 

The Center for Disease Control, in a 2013 study commissioned by President Obama, estimated that defensive gun uses number between several hundred thousand and several million per year in the U.S. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals. http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

 

---

I am glad you recognise that responsible gun owners recognize that a gun is not a toy. 

---

You're talking about the same government that banned personal possession of more than 5 ounces of gold. If they have the temerity to do that, why wouldn’t they want to come for the guns?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

“The state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program.  Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them.†-Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla), 2013

Not only is that confiscation, that is also an ex post facto law, which the United States Constitution bans. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

“It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear, there is no debate, no discussion,†-Leland Yee, California State Senator. (Just before he himself got indicted for trafficking illegal arms.)

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them--Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in--I would have done it." -Senator Dianne Feinstein

 

Obama supported Senator Feinstein’s most recent (2013) attempt to ban assault weapons. The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

• All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.

• All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

• All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

• All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

• All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

• 157 specifically-named firearms.

I’m not sure what you think “taking away your guns†means, but it sure sounds like he and his accomplices are in favor of taking away a large number of common, popular firearms. 

 

Here is a list of firearms the assault weapon ban would have prohibited. These were explicitly mentioned by name in the bill. Go onto any online gun auction site (www.texasguntrader.com, www.gunbroker.com, etc.) and search some of these. They are insanely common. Now tell me that nobody is taking guns away?

 

 

Rifles: All AK types, including the following: AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM, IZHMASH Saiga AK, MAADI AK47 and ARM, Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S, Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS; All AR types, including the following: AR–10, AR–15, Armalite M15 22LR Carbine, Armalite M15–T, Barrett REC7, Beretta AR–70, Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE series, Bushmaster XM15, Colt Match Target Rifles, DoubleStar AR rifles, DPMS Tactical Rifles, Heckler & Koch MR556, Olympic Arms, Remington R–15 rifles, Rock River Arms LAR–15, Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles, Stag Arms AR rifles, Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles; Barrett M107A1; Barrett M82A1; Beretta CX4 Storm; Calico Liberty Series; CETME Sporter; Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C; Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000; Feather Industries AT–9; Galil Model AR and Model ARM; Hi-Point Carbine; HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1 and HK USC; Kel-Tec Sub–2000, SU–16, and RFB; SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, and Sig Sauer SG 551; Springfield Armory SAR–48; Steyr AUG; Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rifle M–14/20CF; All Thompson rifles, including the following: Thompson M1SB, Thompson T1100D, Thompson T150D, Thompson T1B, Thompson T1B100D, Thompson T1B50D, Thompson T1BSB, Thompson T1–C, Thompson T1D, Thompson T1SB, Thompson T5, Thompson T5100D, Thompson TM1, Thompson TM1C; UMAREX UZI Rifle; UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine; Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78; Vector Arms UZI Type; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.

 

Pistols: All AK–47 types, including the following: Centurion 39 AK pistol, Draco AK–47 pistol, HCR AK–47 pistol, IO Inc. Hellpup AK–47 pistol, Krinkov pistol, Mini Draco AK–47 pistol, Yugo Krebs Krink pistol; All AR–15 types, including the following: American Spirit AR–15 pistol, Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol, DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol, DPMS AR–15 pistol, Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol, Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol; Calico Liberty pistols; DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol; Encom MP–9 and MP–45; Heckler & Koch model SP-89 pistol; Intratec AB–10, TEC–22 Scorpion, TEC–9, and TEC–DC9; Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol; The following MAC types: MAC–10, MAC–11; Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol; Military Armament Corp. Ingram M–11, Velocity Arms VMAC; Sig Sauer P556 pistol; Sites Spectre; All Thompson types, including the following: Thompson TA510D, Thompson TA5; All UZI types, including: Micro-UZI.

 

Shotguns: Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12; All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following:IZHMASH Saiga 12, IZHMASH Saiga 12S, IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–01, IZHMASH Saiga 12K, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040 Taktika; Streetsweeper; Striker 12.

 

Belt-fed semiautomatic firearms: All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms including TNW M2HB.

 

 

It’s not like they’re trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment directly. We’re much more concerned with insidious, hidden attacks on those rights. Like, for example, 2013 Operation Chokepoint, run by the Department of Justice under Obama. This operation, disclosed in this Wall Street Journal story, essentially bypassed due process. The government was pressuring the financial industry to cut off companies' access to banking services without first having shown that the targeted companies were violating the law. As reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "it's a thinly veiled ideological attack on industries the Obama administration doesn't like, such as gun sellers and coal producers."

Further, thwarted by Congress in instituting new gun control measures in 2013, Obama moved on to address gun matters through executive order, 23 original  ones in all. Depending on who you ask, none of these executive orders are serious threats to the 2nd Amendment, and there may even be some, like ones prompting easier access to mental health treatment, which pro-gunners can get behind. But there are others, like the executive order encouraging doctors to ask their patients about their firearm ownership, which many find extremely problematic.

The Obama administration has announced more executive actions beyond the original 23 executive orders noted above. One very controversial one prevents the re-importation of military firearms back into the U.S. Since 2005, the government has authorized 250,000 of such firearms. The ban on re-importation negatively affects hobbyists, collectors, and anyone wishing to own these particular types of firearms. In particular, there is concern in some quarters that this executive order might put the 110+ year-old Civilian Marksman Program at risk.

This executive order seems petty and arbitrary, because it is highly doubtful that this restriction will do anything to help prevent violence. How many robberies have you heard about that are committed with an old WWII-vintage M1 Garand? As well, there is nothing different about these firearms compared to other types of non-military rifles that are perfectly legal to buy and use.

More executive orders: In January of 2016, the Obama administration released yet another set of executive orders (actually not true EO’s, actually executive actions, which carry no legislative power), which, among other things, attempts to expand upon when one is required to acquire a Federal Firearms License in order to buy and sell guns. While more FFLs would increase the number of licensees and background checks, there are serious unintended consequences for those that are captured by the new definition, for existing licensees and for the ATF. Even lawyers within the Obama Administration acknowledge that setting an arbitrary numerical threshold would open the door to a legal challenge. Further, the definition for what constitutes a dealer versus a private seller is ambiguous and imprecise; see the ATF’s “guidance†document itself for evidence of this: https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download (PDF). There are no definite regulations in this document that a person can definitively use to determine whether or not they need to apply for an FFL. The document has many ambiguous passages of this sort (for one example):

Federal law does not establish a “bright-line†rule for when a federal firearms license is required. As a result, there is no specific threshold number or frequency of sales, quantity of firearms, or amount of profit or time invested that triggers the licensure requirement. Instead, determining whether you are “engaged in the business†of dealing in firearms requires looking at the specific facts and circumstances of your activities. As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy and sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast, if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personal collection, you do not need to be licensed. In either case, all of your firearms transactions are relevant, regardless of their location; it does not matter if sales are conducted out of your home, at gun shows, flea markets, through the internet, or by other means.

So there is no specific amount of profit that determines if you are a dealer, but you are considered a dealer if you are trying to make a profit? In any case, this document itself on the second page admits it has no legislative power:

The guidance set forth herein has no regulatory effect and is not intended to create or confer any rights, privileges, or benefits in any matter, case, or proceeding, see United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (1979).

Further, the ATF does not have the manpower to do much enforcing of these new requirements; see

http://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/gun-show-obama-executive-action/.

So, to sum all the paragraphs above, while the Obama administration will not be taking away our guns anytime soon, through its executive orders, actions, and statements, it sure looks like it wants to.

 

Laws--federal, state, and local--are proposed to take guns away from citizens all the time, and the vast, vast majority are sponsored by Democrats. Most recently in 2015, we have H.R. 4269, titled “Assault Weapons Ban of 2015†(https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/text) sponsored by David Sicilline of Rhode Island (Democrat) and co-sponsored by 123 other representatives, ALL DEMOCRATS. This bill seeks “To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.†the number of firearms it bans is large, and in fact in this bill all semi-automatic rifles of certain characteristics are banned en masse; the bill actually includes a lengthy list of the specific makes and models of firearms that AREN’T banned. Yes, that’s right, it’s easier to list the guns that aren’t banned than to list the ones that are, under this bill. Visit the link to get more specifics about this proposed ban.

 

 

 

As for the NRA profiting, this is a prime example of spinning numbers by omitting information. (Not by you, mostly Bloomberg.) 

In 2013, the most recent tax information available, the NRA Foundation had revenues of roughly $43.1 million. Of that, $25.4 million came from contributions and grants to the foundation; of that, almost $19 million came from over 1000 fundraising events. $6.2 million came from “other†contributions. Presumably, this is where the corporate contributions would come from.

Now wait, you ask, where is the other $15 million coming from? Gambling! The IRS in Form 990 separates traditional fundraising from bingo and raffles and such. The NRA Foundation nets $15.4 million on 30 million gross and 14.5 million expenses.

So, you’re implying that evil gun corporations pump money into the NRA. But assuming the entire $6+ million of "other contributions" was corporate funded, it pales in comparison to standard fundraisers and gaming income.

Source: NRA Foundation Form 990 filing, Tax Year 2013. http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/521/521710886/521710886_201312_990.pdf

---

It’s all about lack of due process, or in this case, lack of it. The bill permits the Attorney general to deny any firearms or explosives permit without giving any reason if it is deemed a “national security†issue. It also says that the terror watch list will be used to determine who should be allowed to purchase guns. Your name can go on the list and you have no easy means of getting it removed. That means the government will determine who can and can't own weapons and explosives.

 

So-called “universal†background checks are toothless without a centralized, national registry--and a registry is a non-starter for gun owners. Think it through. A person can buy a gun, and as long as they pass the background check, they get the gun. If they sell it to someone without them undergoing another background check--how will the authorities ever know, unless all guns are registered?

Furthermore, once a criminal has a gun in his hands, he can just scratch off the serial number before giving or selling it to another criminal. The only effect of a universal background check is to make buying and owning a gun a bigger inconvenience than it already is.

 

Really, why do we need more background checks when we can’t even correctly use the ones we perform now? One major issue is the near total lack of enforcement for perjury on application forms for background checks. In 2010 alone, 76,142 fraudulent ATF Form 4473 applications were submitted. Only 4,732 of these cases were referred to law enforcement agencies, and less than 62 of those resulted in arrest and prosecution. Only 13 were found guilty or plead guilty. That means slightly under one-tenth of 1% of those illegally attempting to purchase a firearm from a licensed gun seller were even charged with a crime, let alone prosecuted for it.

---

There was the National Firearms Act of 1934, then the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the creation of the ATF in 1972, the Law Enforcement Act Protection Act of 1986, the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1990, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994, (which did nothing to stop crime, by the way, and expired), and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005--all federal laws designed to restrict the ownership of specific firearm categories, restrict ownership in general, or make us “more safe.†That’s just on the federal level. Of course, many state laws have also been implemented as a “compromise.†The permit process in many states includes high fees, required training, multi-page applications, interviews with officers, interviews with law enforcement administrators, officers visiting your neighbors, yearly reviews, and fingerprinting in booking rooms among other requirements. And gun owners haven’t compromised... Whatever happened to “shall not be infringed�

 

Did I miss anything? 

[SoS]

None of that stuff gets a special report, so...

[Mutsuo Toi]

-snip-

Your post is good but it's tl;dr... Can you make it short? Some libtard are lazy to read it all.

Edited June 14, 2016 by lizard noob

[Mutsuo Toi]

None of that stuff gets a special report, so...

So what? It's all lies? You think all of these report are all bullshit? Maybe a report that show you the highest crime rate's belong to the US might be special to you.

 

Deal with it! Every time a nation banned gun, there will be dead innocent people commit by criminal that armed to teeth. If not, the government will do it instead.

Edited June 14, 2016 by lizard noob

[Aisha Greyjoy]

So, he was a mentally unstable, socially awkward bottom-dweller.

 

He was actively (gay or bisexual) and closeted.

 

He beat his first wife.

 

His second marriage was considered more "successful".

 

He claimed loyalty to Shia Hezbollah, Sunni ISIS and Sunni al-Qaida, completely contradictory alliegences.

 

The FBI investigated him twice for terrorist ties, and then he bought an AR-15.

 

There's a lot of facts to put together here before we call it a hate crime or an act of terrorism.  Both probably fit, but what's the narrative?

 

I'm imagining he was gay, he hated himself for it, and he found in jihad an opportunity to die a martyr and have his gay sins forgiven by God.  Is that terrorism?  Is that a hate crime?  Probably both, but maybe my version is wrong.  We may never know for sure.

 

Its a lot !@#$ more complicated then idiots on the internet shouting "ban guns" or "ban muslims" make it out to be.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Aisha Greyjoy

[Rozalia]

So, he was a mentally unstable, socially awkward bottom-dweller.

 

He was actively (gay or bisexual) and closeted.

 

He beat his first wife.

 

His second marriage was considered more "successful".

 

He claimed loyalty to Shia Hezbollah, Sunni ISIS and Sunni al-Qaida, completely contradictory alliegences.

 

The FBI investigated him twice for terrorist ties, and then he bought an AR-15.

 

There's a lot of facts to put together here before we call it a hate crime or an act of terrorism.  Both probably fit, but what's the narrative?

 

I'm imagining he was gay, he hated himself for it, and he found in jihad an opportunity to die a martyr and have his gay sins forgiven by God.  Is that terrorism?  Is that a hate crime?  Probably both, but maybe my version is wrong.  We may never know for sure.

 

Its a lot !@#$ more complicated then idiots on the internet shouting "ban guns" or "ban muslims" make it out to be.

 

My post in "50+ Culturally Enriched in Orlando".

 

Now in regards to the subject there is news that his father supports the Taliban and that he (the terrorist) sold his house for a minuscule sum not long before committing the act implying family knew. Which takes us to an often brought up situation of Muslim families knowing of terrorist family members but not doing anything about it thereby leading us to the meme of, "A Radical Muslim wants to behead you, a Moderate Muslim wants the Radical Muslim to behead you".

 

Also http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/14/orlando-gunman-was-a-regular-at-lgbt-nightclub-pulse-before-atta/points towards the terrorist being homosexual himself. Now some might jump at that and state that it disavows Islam's place in this completely if he was Homosexual, however I disagree. If I had to guess on the matter he at some point became heavily religious, you don't commit these types of Islamic terrorism if you don't have a strong belief, so talk about how he was years or whatever back are irrelevant. Knowing how much of a "sinner" he was it likely promoted his belief that he should gun down gays to sort of prove to Allah that he's a "good boy". 

 

Now how to solve such things if that is how it went? Very simple. You target the discrimination and violence that happens in the Muslim community on Apostates and state to them that their actions against the so called Apostates is unacceptable and will be severely punished. Once Muslims (or Apostates we should say I suppose) can be gay openly, state their disbelief, disavow parts of their religion, and so on openly without fear then guys like this will be less likely. However to do that would be to admit that the minority, that being Muslims, are at fault and as we know to the "left" minorities are like children and never accountable. Instead they will promote gun control which will further inflame people against Muslims as people will rightly see that instead of focusing on the Islam problem, the left is instead attacking them.

 

 

[Aisha Greyjoy]

It annoys me how conservatives ONLY SEE muslims as the issue and most liberals ONLY SEE guns as the problem.  Some liberals also see homophobia as the problem.

 

I suppose if he grew up in a "liberal" environment, he wouldn't have had to feel shame and self-loathing at his gayness and that may have led to a happier outcome for everyone.  Or maybe crazy is crazy.

 

My hierarchy starts at children and then innocent people and then F'ers who deserved it.

Muslims and homosexuals fall in all three categories depending on the individual.

[Clarke]

He claimed loyalty to Shia Hezbollah, Sunni ISIS and Sunni al-Qaida, completely contradictory alliegences.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. 

[Rozalia]

It annoys me how conservatives ONLY SEE muslims as the issue and most liberals ONLY SEE guns as the problem.  Some liberals also see homophobia as the problem.

 

I suppose if he grew up in a "liberal" environment, he wouldn't have had to feel shame and self-loathing at his gayness and that may have led to a happier outcome for everyone.  Or maybe crazy is crazy.

 

My hierarchy starts at children and then innocent people and then F'ers who deserved it.

Muslims and homosexuals fall in all three categories depending on the individual.

 

A "liberal" environment you speak of would be defined as not a Muslim environment, actually it'd have to go further and Islamic culture would have to be strictly opposed. It doesn't matter how Liberal the area, be it city, county, region, or country if they are part of a community that Liberals protect and allow to fester all their ills, in this homophobia but there are a great many other things. 

The culture is also tied to their religion as it is not simply a religion, but a political ideology, culture, and some would say even a nationality.

 

What the environment needs to be is one that is strict in telling that all that garbage is not alright. One that allows open insulting and mocking of what they see as perfect, and one that protects those who either wish to leave the faith/culture or wish to follow a Liberal form (none of this "moderate" garbage) and if they oppose this? If they hound and attack people? Lock 'em up for hate crimes, and deport those you can. Religion moderates itself when it is weakened, not allowed to fester and embolden itself as Liberals are allowing. 

[Mutsuo Toi]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

You meant to say Nazist is also your friends right? if you think nazi germany is evil to you.

Edited June 14, 2016 by lizard noob

[WISD0MTREE]

None of that stuff gets a special report, so...

And if it agreed with your views, I bet it would deserve a special report. Right? 

 

Your post is good but it's tl;dr... Can you make it short? Some libtard are lazy to read it all.

tl;dr (divided by section): 

 

Gun control is bullshit. 

 

Machine guns (as defined by the ATF, not CNN) are legal and have only been used in one crime in the US since 1934. What they used in Orlando was not a machine gun. 

 

Brief history of guns being used in self defense (or being restricted to prevent such use). 

 

Responsible gun owners recognize that a gun is not a toy. 

 

While many people who believe that guns should be controlled, they are being used by people who want guns to be banned. And the NRA is a grassroots organization, despite what CNN and Facebook says. 

 

The terror watch list has no due process. Universal background checks would require universal registration, wouldn't stop criminals who file down the serial numbers, and would only prove to be a hassle for gun owners/potential gun owners/potential ex-gun owners. Current background check laws are being ignored by the ATF, so more laws wouldn't do anything. 

 

Gun owners have "compromised" more than nine times on a federal level and many more on the state and local levels. The reason why we don't want another "compromise" is because gun owners haven't gained anything from "compromising." 

[Mutsuo Toi]

-snip-

 

 

 

You're damn right about it.

[SoS]

So what? It's all lies? You think all of these report are all bullshit? Maybe a report that show you the highest crime rate's belong to the US might be special to you.

 

Deal with it! Every time a nation banned gun, there will be dead innocent people commit by criminal that armed to teeth. If not, the government will do it instead.

Point is all the media obsessed society sees is the massacre that interrupts their regularly scheduled diet of celebrity gossip. No one cares about statistical facts. Shootings are all they are aware of

And, that for only as long as the media can repeat the same story and pimp their speculations. Facts and information doesn't get ratings.

 

How many die or are maimed in non-massacre gun violence and accidents each year? A lot. But that doesn't fit the gun agenda.

 

If no one had a gun we'd all be safer. No one - including criminals. That's not going to happen, so I'm in favor of law abiding citizens having guns. I'm also in favor of much stricter restrictions on who can own guns. And, the 2nd amendment fanatics oppose that, to their own detriment.

[Mutsuo Toi]

If no one had a gun we'd all be safer. No one - including criminals. That's not going to happen, so I'm in favor of law abiding citizens having guns. I'm also in favor of much stricter restrictions on who can own guns. And, the 2nd amendment fanatics oppose that, to their own detriment.

 I don't think you're actually take my post seriously, especially when I say about the government role.

 

In fact, you think gun control would keep away the criminal having a gun? I laugh at it, but I'm gonna make it clear.

 

No matters how you trying to keep those criminal having a gun, they will have one illegally. If NOT, The Government will do their job.

 

Seriously, what do you think "criminals" are stand for? Some innocent citizen?

 

And please... 2nd Amendment is infringed, you can't abolish it no matter what. If do, is not even United States anymore.

 

To be honest, I'd rather die by a gunshot in a gun battle than watching my whole family raped and killed meanwhile illegal criminal armed to teeth.

 

How many die or are maimed in non-massacre gun violence and accidents each year? A lot. But that doesn't fit the gun agenda.

 

So you rather watch you family raped and killed by a fugitive after your long and painful death than protect your family with your gun?

 

 

 

You can't stop those damn criminal with gun control. Gun control failed at people, deal with it. Or you just finding a good chance to enslave and rape a mans wife for yourself as a government.

Edited June 14, 2016 by lizard noob